Claimant v Integrated Care 24

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure because the correspondence did not disclose information but rather represented a disagreement over a proposed course of action regarding an HCPC referral. The tribunal also found that the alleged detriments (being told she was refusing a management request, Mrs Robinson saying she did not want to hear about Mr Betts, and Ms Harvey taking no action) either did not occur or were not established on the evidence.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could properly conclude that race played any part in the decisions relating to the claimant's starting salary (explained by lack of experience compared to comparators), job title change (administrative error), study leave refusal (explained by relevance to role), or other alleged detriments. The tribunal accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations for all alleged acts of race discrimination.

The tribunal found no facts from which it could properly conclude that sex played any part in the treatment of the claimant. The hypothetical comparator or actual comparators (Mr Kurn, Ms Parkington, Ms Randlesome, Mr Fisher) were either not true comparators or the respondent provided satisfactory non-discriminatory explanations for any differences in treatment, such as differences in role, experience, or operational requirements.

The tribunal did not believe the claimant's allegations that Mr Betts made comments about 'foreign nurses' wanting extended leave or enjoying refusing Christmas leave to non-Christian nurses. The tribunal found these allegations inconsistent with the claimant's own contemporaneous actions, including recommending Mr Betts for an internal award in February 2022, and found on the balance of probabilities that the comments were not made.

The claim under section 80H ERA (failure to deal with flexible working request in reasonable manner) failed because the claimant withdrew her application within 4 days of making it and the tribunal found the respondent had dealt with the application in a reasonable manner. Mr Betts did not refuse the request; he expressed concerns and the claimant chose to withdraw it.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged acts, either individually or cumulatively, amounted to a breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. The respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions. The tribunal also found that even if there had been breaches, all save the flexible working discussion had been affirmed by the claimant continuing in employment without protest.